Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare via Email Share via Shortlink Message* An aerial of 341-347 Madison Avenue and Boston Properties CEO Owen D. Thomas (Google Maps, Real Estate Roundtable)Boston Properties is moving forward with its plans to replace the MTA’s old Madison Avenue headquarters with a supertall tower.The developer filed a land use application with the Department of City Planning for the site at 341-347 Madison Avenue in Midtown. Boston Properties wants to replace the former MTA HQ, as well as three adjacent MTA-owned lots, with a skyscraper that could rise 1,050 feet.The developer is seeking zoning changes for its proposed building, meaning the project must go through the city’s uniform land use review procedure; submitting the application to the planning department kickstarts that process. If the application is certified, it triggers the seven-month public review process, which would ultimately end with approval (or not) from the City Council and the mayor.ADVERTISEMENTBoston Properties has proposed a 925,000-square-foot mixed-use commercial, office and retail building, according to a draft scope of work released last summer.The developer is seeking two zoning changes to make that happen: It wants to double the building’s floor-area ratio — from 15 to 30 FAR — in exchange for improving pedestrian and mass transit circulation. It’s also seeking a smaller setback distance to accommodate a larger building, which is projected to have 200 feet of frontage along Madison Avenue and 125 feet of frontage along both East 44th and 45th Streets. Assuming all goes according to plan, construction would wrap up in 2026, according to the draft scope.Boston Properties did not respond to a request for comment. The developer filed applications to demolish the three buildings earlier this year.Read moreMTA crisis could be catastrophic for New York real estate Medical offices are just what the doctor ordered for landlords Manhattan office market’s 25% drop is ominous sign for landlords Full Name* It’s been quite a journey to get to this point: The MTA bought 347 Madison Avenue for $11.9 million in 1979, and the adjacent sites for $12.25 million and $23.75 million, respectively, in 1991, the New York Times reported. It began seeking bids from developers in 2013 to demolish and rebuild the site. Soon after, the MTA moved its headquarters to 2 Broadway, but continued to pay about $4 million per year to maintain the Madison Avenue building.Boston Properties was selected in 2016 to develop the site, but the city objected to the deal over the allocation of property taxes. But shortly after the coronavirus caused financial issues for both the transit agency and the city, the two sides came to an agreement.It’s projected that the site could generate more than $1 billion in revenue for the MTA over a 99-year ground lease, with the proceeds benefiting capital improvements.After the 2015 rezoning of the Vanderbilt Corridor — in which the MTA’s former HQ sits — and the broader Midtown East rezoning of 2017, developers flocked to the area to build new skyscrapers. SL Green’s 1.6 million-square-foot One Vanderbilt opened last year, and JPMorgan Chase is planning a new, 2.2 million-square-foot headquarters at 270 Park Avenue. And next to Grand Central Terminal, TF Cornerstone and RXR Realty are hoping to build a skyscraper that could rise 1,600 feet.While the immediate future of the office market is murky — a recent Partnership of New York City survey found 10 percent of Manhattan office employees had returned to the workplace as of early March, unchanged since October — Boston Properties’ 2026 construction deadline looks past the date when the sector is expected to recover from the pandemic.Contact Orion Jones Tags Share via Shortlink Boston Propertiesdepartment of city planningManhattan Office Marketmidtown office market Email Address*
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) Board recently issued a proposed rule that would remove the prohibition on capitalization of interest in connection with loan workouts and modifications. NAFCU’s Regulatory Alerton the proposed rule provides all the details you need to better understand the rule and help us provide useful feedback to NCUA as to whether this rule strikes the correct balance of helpful but not too burdensome. The capitalization of interest is the addition of unpaid interest to the principal balance of a loan. This practice is particularly useful in managing loans in deferment or forbearance, which has been regularly offered during the COVID-19 pandemic. Borrowers are still facing financial hardships as a result of the pandemic that has stretched almost ten months in the United States. Access to viable solutions to address deferred interest will help borrowers and credit unions navigate the uncertain new year ahead.NAFCU has advocated for a capitalization of interest allowance several times this year, including two letters written to NCUA in March and September. The letters, as well as NCUA’s rule release, mention operational concerns and the overly burdensome nature of the restriction. This relief will help credit unions and their members to meet loan obligations during the pandemic and beyond.Current StructureUnder the current loan modification structure, the options for borrowers are limited. Many borrowers may have already been delinquent when their deferment period began under the CARES Act or similar hardship modification. A credit union can seek to recapture the deferred interest in a few ways, each of which has its own flaws for both the borrow and the credit union. This is placeholder text continue reading » This post is currently collecting data… ShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr NCUA headquarters
After finally submitting his official nomination in August, passing that nomination through committee by a strict party line vote in September (where he again lied to senators), and then basically forgetting about it, CNN reports Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been approached about continuing to advance Unlawful Chad’s nomination to a full vote, “a move seemingly acknowledging both a forthcoming change in administrations and criticism that Wolf’s appointment was invalid,” the report said.The Trump administration officially submitted Unlawful Chad’s nomination only because his unlawful appointment risks any policy he’s signed his name to. And there have been quite a few consequential items. Just days ago, a coalition of states in fact sued Unlawful Chad over changes further decimating the popular and successful Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, saying he “lacked the legal authority to issue the memo … because he was never validly appointed to his position.”- Advertisement – – Advertisement – It’s going to be work for the incoming Biden administration to reverse many of the outgoing administration’s immigration policies, but experts have noted that some of that could be eased because many of the policies have been found unlawful in court. In the case of the policy making it harder for working immigrant families to access green cards, “Biden’s attorney general could drop the appeal, letting stand the federal judge’s ruling that the Trump administration unlawfully created the public charge rule,” the American Immigration Lawyers Association said according to USA Today.“To make a long story short,” University of Texas law school professor Steve Vladeck said according to CNN, “I think the effort to have him confirmed is principally with an eye toward attempting to ratify all of the programs and policies that could be struck down by courts holding his acting appointment was unlawful.”Unlawful Chad didn’t deserve to be officially confirmed a year ago and he certainly doesn’t deserve to be confirmed now. The only reason why his name should come up in Congress is relating to investigations into his criminal behavior. – Advertisement –
Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.